IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5122 of 2024)

THE STATE OF TRIPURA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS RANJIT ROY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, preferred by the State of Tripura (“hereinafter the appellant”), challenges the judgment and order dated 11 August 2023 of the High Court of Tripura in Criminal Petition No. 02 of 2023 (“the impugned order”). Respondent nos. 1 to 4, Ranjit Roy, Biswajit Roy, Abhijit Roy and Rina Roy, are members of one branch of the Roy family and respondent no. 5, Smt. Hena Roy, belongs to another branch. All five are heirs of late Haridhan Roy. The High Court of Tripura, in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC:

I. Quashed three cases, NGR-17(M), NGR-37(M) and NGR-38(M) of 2022, pending before the Sub-Divisional Signature Not Verified D Ni Eg Eita Tl Uly Ksi Hgn Ae Jd U Rby IA Magistrate, Kumarghat (“the SDM”);

Date: 2025.05.14 Reason:

II. Set aside the SDM’s attachment order dated 02 June

2022 made under Section 146 CrPC;

III. Set aside the judgment dated 12 January 2023 of the Sessions Judge, Kailashahar that had affirmed that attachment; and IV. Imposed personal costs of ₹50,000 each on the then SDM and the Duty-cum-Magistrate (“DCM”).

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are set out below:

3.1 The dispute centres on a 0.09-acre dokan-vitti (shop plot) recorded as Plot No. 562, Khatian No. 33, Mouja North Machmara, Tehsil Machmara, district Unakoti. On 24 February 2022 respondents nos. 1-4 instituted T.S. (Partition) 04/2022 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kailashahar, seeking partition of the plot.

3.2 While that suit was pending, respondent no. 5 lodged complaints with the SDM alleging an imminent breach of peace. The SDM registered the following three cases:

I. Case NGR-17(M)/2022 under Section 107 of CrPC;

II. Case NGR-37(M)/2022 under Section 107 of CrPC; and III. Case NGR-38(M)/2022 under Section 107 CrPC.

3.3 Police reports dated 08 February, 11 February and 26 March 2022 described mounting tension at the site. A certificate issued on 18 March 2022 by the Machmara Bazar Committee stated that respondents nos. 1-4 had broken the shop lock with weapons and taken possession. 3.4 On 19 May 2022 the SDM served notices under Section 107 CrPC directing all parties to appear on 02 June 2022. Before written objections were filed, the SDM treating the matter as falling under Section 145 CrPC, passed an order on 02 June 2022 attaching the property under Section 146(1) CrPC and appointed the Officer-in-

Charge, Pecharthal Police Station, as receiver.

3.5 Respondents nos. 1-4 challenged that attachment in Criminal Revision No. 03(2)/2022. On 12 January 2023 the Sessions Judge, Kailashahar upheld the SDM’s order, holding that no illegality had been committed.

3.6 Thereafter, the respondents nos. 1-4 invoked powers under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court vide Crl. Petition 02/2023. The High Court, by the impugned order of 11 August 2023, quashed the SDM and Sessions-Court orders, halted the three magistrate cases, and fined the two executive officers.

3.7 Aggrieved, the appellant-State has filed this appeal asserting that the attachment was a lawful interim measure to avert violence, that the civil and criminal proceedings could run side-by-side, and that the personal costs have no legal foundation.

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. The issue for consideration is whether the High Court was right in quashing the preventive proceedings and whether its personal findings and monetary directions against the two executive officers can stand.

6. Sections 145 and 146 of CrPC are temporary measures intended only to avert an immediate breach of peace until a competent civil court decides the parties’ rights. When such a civil suit is already pending the criminal process should ordinarily give way unless a genuine emergency is shown. This principle was expounded in the case of Ram Sumer Singh v. St